SHRI KRISHAN SAI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs. YOUNG MENS PROGRESSIVE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Arbitration Petition is filed by the Petitioner - Shri Krishan Sai Development Corporation against Respondent No. 1 - Young Men's Progressive Cooperative Society Limited (the Society), Respondent No. 2 - Mr. Ravi V. Botlaje and Respondent No. 3 - Mr. Avinash Babar, who are the Members of a Society, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act') for the following reliefs:

(2.) THE relevant facts for deciding the present Petition, are briefly set out hereunder:

(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that Respondent No. 2 alongwith other Members also approved the Development Agreement and the layout plan. Respondent No. 3 initially did oppose the approval of the Development Agreement on the ground that the names of all the Members should be approved prior to the approval of the Development Agreement but at the same meeting subsequently stated alongwith two other opposing Members that, "they are favouring the resolution on the point that the meeting is arranged with the Developer to clear some of their difficulties". Subsequently, a meeting was held with the Developer, which was attended by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and at which meeting all the Members including Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 decided to vacate their respective flats/premises. It is submitted that it is true that while granting redevelopment permission on 31st October, 2012, the State Government imposed a condition that the Collector should verify the eligibility of the existing Members of the Society and pursuant thereto the Collector by his order dated 29th July, 2013 imposed a further condition that if the transfers in favour of the existing Members are without prior approval, then, such transfers are to be approved by the District Social Welfare Officer, and until such approval the development shall not commence. However, the Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, Mumbai Suburban on 22nd August, 2014 issued a NOC for redevelopment subject to the condition that the occupation of all the Members of the Society be regularized before obtaining the building completion certificate upon redevelopment. It is submitted that therefore the condition in the NOC dated 29th July, 2013 stood modified by NOC dated 22nd August, 2014. It will not be out of place to mention here that since Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had submitted in Court that despite the condition in the NOC dated 22nd August, 2014, the Collector can resume the land on which the said building is situated, on the ground that the condition in the NOC dated 29th July, 2013 was breached, this Court with a view to assist the parties directed the Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare Mumbai Suburban to remain present in Court and sought a clarification on the aforestated controversy raised by the parties. However, the Officer from the Social Welfare Department except for confirming that the NOC dated 22nd August, 2014 was in fact issued by the Social Welfare Department was unable to assist the Court in any manner.